Jay Cutler is reportedly healthy enough from his groin injury to return Sunday against the Lions. The Chicago Bears should wait at least one more week before starting Cutler, and it's not because of the two reasons others are giving. At least not primarily so.

Many people, including the Chicago Tribune's David Haugh, say "what's the hurry" since backup Josh McCown has a 100 passer rating in two games of relief.

ESPN's Michael Wilbon writes that the Bears need to wait another week to be extra careful that Cutler is OK. Wilbon writes:

"The Bears, considering they still have to figure out what to do about Cutler long term, need him to play as many snaps as he can the remainder of the season. Signing a quarterback to a $100 million deal is only the most important decision a franchise can make."

The reason Cutler should sit another week is the exact reason Wilbon, who wants to stick with McCown for the first reason, would consider playing Cutler: Because they need to know as much about Cutler as possible before paying him $100 million to stay.

I have already written that McCown can help the Bears decide about Cutler. I agree with Wilbon that weather to pay Cutler top dollar for a long-term contract is the Bears single biggest upcoming decision. I've written that twice already.

But you can't decide Cutler's worth in a vacuum.

Often, a player can look better than he actually is if a team has an incompetent backup. See most Bears backups over the years.

But Josh McCown has certainly proven himself capable in the last two games.

Remember how the Cardinals couldn't afford to let Albert Pujols go? Well, they did, and Allen Craig has shown that NOT paying Albert Pujols $300 million -- or even $200 million -- was the best possible decision St. Louis could have made. (By the way, that includes NOT TRADING Pujols either, and letting him go for nothing but a draft pick (which turned into Michael Wacha) and keeping him for one last season which turned into a World Series title-winning season. As a Twins fan, I'd have loved to have seen Minnesota do the same with Johan Santana. Instead, the Twins traded him to the Mets before the 2008 season and missed the playoffs that year by losing to the White Sox in a one-game playoff; they certainly would have beaten out Chicago that year if they kept Santana, who led the NL in ERA that season.

Anyway, I want to see Josh McCown play three games for the Bears. Then have Cutler come back. If Cutler is no better than McCown, that doesn't mean Josh McCown is the Bears starting quarterback next year, but it SHOULD mean that the Bears shouldn't pay Cutler $100 million to stay.

The Ravens paid Joe Flacco $120 million for four great playoff games after winning the Super Bowl last year, even though he has proven to be a mediocre quarterback during the regular season. The result: The Ravens now have a 3-5 team with a $20 million year quarterback who is the No. 24-rated passer in the NFL.

How are the Bears supposed to decide whether it's worth paying Jay Cutler to run their offense when he is the only one they've seen running Marc Trestman's offense? Let's see them both give it a shot. Then we can decide whether to give Cutler what it will take to sign him or whether it's a better idea to say $15 million a year, draft a quarterback in the deepest QB draft in years (nine supposedly have first-round draft grades, and that's not even counting the one I would take, Eastern Illinois' Jimmy Garoppolo, who I'd take early in the second round or even late in the first if you can't trade down (or up) to early in the second.

But the only way to truly decide how much the Bears need Jay Cutler is to give both Cutler and a capable (but cheap) replacement an extended look.